Protect me from myself, please

[riptides]

Interesting....
Death is the easy part, it is support, care and pain of loved ones and family after some unfortunate incident happens.
Some people elect not to wear a helmet, or practice some sort of saftey sense, and society pays for the mistake.
I think this is where the debates should be going.
-Mike Z. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Henro]

<font color="blue"> Just how did we survive in those darkages. Common sense maybe? </font>

John,

I can't help think, all things being equal, that we didn't.

At least not as frequently as we do today when using the increased protective devices available to us...
/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[RoyJackson]

"Some people elect not to wear a helmet, or practice some sort of saftey sense, and society pays for the mistake ."

And, that's a good point! If society has to bear the unfortunate costs of a mishap, then the personal responsibility isn't happening...

A real dillema...

 

[johnday]

Many excellent,interesting, and intelligent replies in this thread. A common thought in the last few replies seem to relate to choices people make that affect everyone in one form or another, insurance costs being one of them.

A number of years before we had the seatbelt law here, I went to some sort of law enforcement seminar put on by the Michigan State Police. One of the topics was seatbelt/shoulder belt use and expecting your "wet noodles", arms, to keep you from being thrown around in a vehicle during an accident. It was an eye opener to say the least. Some use the excuse of fire in an accident for justification for not wearing them. It was explained that fire happens less than .01% of the time. I've been wearing belts ever since and make sure that whoever is with me is too! But, my point, as relating to myself at least, is "I" don't need a law to insure my safety in that respect. On the other hand though, I feel we DO need some laws, speed limits being one of the less unenforcable ones. There are other laws I myself would like to see passed. But these laws in my book are basically to protect me from someone less sensable. Yes, I obey speedlimits, pass only on the left if possible etc. It seems the vast majority of us on this site appear to share the same thoughts, or am I missing the point?

It's almost ridulous the amount of laws we have that are unenforced for many reasons, money probably being the primemover here.

But you know what? I really resent being held hostage by the results of irresponsible people. Is there any kind of relief in sight in place of starting my own country? Oh, just remembered, isn't there a law against that too? Before any LE types think I'm bashing them, forget it! I just love it for example when a boy in blue nabs someone who is endangering the lives and propery of others. I think it all comes down to LACK of common sense that we have to live like someone who tries to be some kind of allknowing benefactor thinks we should.

Man, even I'm getting on a roll with this one. And nobodies turned this into even a hint of a flame war. I LOVE IT !!

 

[RockMtn1]

Here are my thoughts:

1) Too many lawyers

Lawyers produce nothing with respect to the GDP. They just shift assets around. The more assets that are shifted, the more money they make. There is no incentive to stop this madness and no significant penalty when a case is lost to discourage nuisance lawsuits.

2) Laws are too complex/complicated and there are too many of them.

When officers of the court cannot even understand how to correctly apply the law, what chance does the common man have? How many times have you heard that a case is thrown out because of a "technicality"? This is also job security for the lawyers. I am sure that I unknowingly broke numerous laws today, but I have no idea what they are.

3) Too many settlements out of court

When it is easier/faster/cheaper to settle out of court instead of pursuing/establishing the truth, then there is a big problem. Some folks make a living doing this type of activity. This is just plain wrong.

4) Jurors are being involved in cases for which they have no expertise and that expertise is sorely needed.

Some cases are extremely complex to the point that jurors are completely in the dark as far as facts/truth. You can say that that is the job of the DA/defense attorney, but some subjects require years of study/experience to understand/master. Faced with competing expert witnesses, the juror must have some basis of knowledge in order to form an accurate opinion. Both the DA and defense attorney want the most pliable/uneducated person possible on the jury. Is this really who should be deciding the verdict?

 

[Soundguy]

I was at an engine and tractor show today.. just about everything had open flywheels and belt drives.. I'm sure an OSHA man would have passed out..

Soundguy

 

[Libertine]

OkeeDon:

<font color="blue">May I respectfully ask for evidence to show one single life that has ever been saved? Temporarily prolonged, maybe, but the first person whose life has been saved will be the first person to be immortal. I'm certain there have been people who fell from a bicycle one day, and didn't die because they were wearing a helmet, who were hit by a truck and killed the next day. The point being, there is simply no way to eliminate the inveitable. </font>

Amen. Oops, sorry, not supposed to mention religion. To mention another "risky behavior" the ober sturm fuerher's rail against, there's a line in the American version of Diabolique, Sharon Stone is walking between two buildings smoking along with two of her co-teachers and one of them talks about "second hand smoke kills too you know." Her reply is "yes, but not reliably."

JEH